Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th May 2009 08:24 UTC
Internet & Networking When Google released the first version of its Chrome web browser, many eyebrows were raised over the fact that it updated itself automatically and silently, in the background, without user intervention or even so much as a notice. As it turns out, this has been a brilliant move by Google, as Chrome users are the most likely to have up-to-date installations of their browser, followed at a respectable distance by Firefox users. Safari and Opera trail behind significantly.
Thread beginning with comment 362275
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Yes !
by Fergy on Thu 7th May 2009 13:28 UTC in reply to "Yes !"
Fergy
Member since:
2006-04-10

You can hide the update window after clicking download update. The next time you start Firefox it updates. Now where did this interrupt your 'work'flow?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Yes !
by merkoth on Thu 7th May 2009 14:43 in reply to "RE: Yes !"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

Some people like to keep Firefox open for months just to avoid reloading their tabs, mostly because they have a royall ass-ton of them opened at the same time. Ever heard of "Firefox taking 2gb of RAM"?

I've heard this many times, specially from people constantly whining that FF leaks memory (having 50 youtube tabs open at the same time has nothing to do with the huge memory consumption, of course) and I still don't get it.

But that's just my two cents, of course.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Yes !
by cyclops on Thu 7th May 2009 15:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Yes !"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Some people like to keep Firefox open for months just to avoid reloading their tabs, mostly because they have a royall ass-ton of them opened at the same time. Ever heard of "Firefox taking 2gb of RAM"?

I've heard this many times, specially from people constantly whining that FF leaks memory (having 50 youtube tabs open at the same time has nothing to do with the huge memory consumption, of course) and I still don't get it.

But that's just my two cents, of course.


Are you talking Firefox or Flash. Firefox 2 had regressions and new features...firefox 3 is a no brainer to upgrade to and I suspect 3.5 will the same. Memory consumption is less than other browsers now, and a embedded version is coming.

Flash on the other hand is painful and the only major binary blob on my system. I update religiously to each version of gnash in hope that its a real replacement...but as yet it disappoints. Its simply closer.

That said this mentioning memory thing in anything other than move to firefox 3 or stick with firefox 1.5 is just silly.

Reply Parent Score: 2